From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Scholz Subject: Results 2.6.17 vs 2.6.19 Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:44:59 +0100 Message-ID: <45A6698B.4080504@imc-berlin.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.imc-berlin.de ([217.110.46.186]:1200 "EHLO mail.imc-berlin.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750845AbXAKQpG (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:45:06 -0500 Received: from mailserver.berlin.imc-berlin.de (mailserver.berlin.imc-berlin.de [10.0.0.19]) by mail.imc-berlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C730E2F02B for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:39:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailserver.berlin.imc-berlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA88B10B6D for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:44:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.0.2.10] (scholz.berlin.imc-berlin.de [10.0.2.10]) by mailserver.berlin.imc-berlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 018D6A0AD for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:44:59 +0100 (CET) To: linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-rt-users.vger.kernel.org Hi all, I tried to reproduce the results shown on http://rt.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Cyclictest So I ran cyclictest -t 1 -p 80 -i 10000 -n -l 10000 and cyclictest -t 1 -p 80 -i 10000 -l 10000 on my emdedded x86 Celeron, 600MHz using 2.6.17-rt3 and 2.6.19-rt15. Funny enough the older version seems to be better: 2.6.17-rt3 4 33 10 2.6.19-rt15 9 31 19 2.6.17-rt3 4 35 19 2.6.19-rt15 16 38 29 2.6.17-rt3 11 34 22 2.6.19-rt15 27 55 42 2.6.17-rt3 24 47 33 2.6.19-rt15 41 100 56 Is there a known explanation? Think I try to test some 2.6.20-rt tomorrow ... -- Steven